Shooting themselves in the foot

I know a lot of guys that enjoy Mixed Martial Arts.  One of the outlets of that is the UFC.  Well, the UFC has now banned Shooting and Hunting Sponsors. Shooting and Hunting Sponsors have helped and supported a lot of MMA Fighters the last 10 years.  This isn’t so much for cutting off the advertising for the gun companies… but for them cutting off what is essentially our support for their sport.
This is highly insulting.
So what we need to do, is to vote with our wallets.  If our sponsorship isn’t good enough for them, then our money isn’t good enough for them either.  We need to get the word out, that Shooters and Hunters will now not patronize the UFC.

13 thoughts on “Shooting themselves in the foot”

  1. This news has me heated. This sport has a fan base that is overwhelmingly pro 2nd and very cognizant of the hunting and shooting ads and company logos they’ve seen. Many I’ve spoken with have been very happy about the presence of shooting sports representation. It’s a very un-PC sport. You’d think they’d be savvy enough to forget the ritualized appeasement of the American Eloi. The gun-phobic therapist worshipers will always hate MMA. Screwing gun companies won’t change that. The UFC needs friends and it’s not going to get them among the whining, androgynous pencil-necks. With this policy change they loose friends and gain none.

    This was a stupid, pointless move. I’m personally going to be making noise about this. Everyone should. This is our backyard. Don’t let this episode of thoughtless Eloi appeasement go by quietly.

  2. According to the article, and the one it links to, Fox is ultimately responsible for demanding a ban, not UFC…

  3. Thinking that there’s really a community of deep interest between the MMA people and Second Amendment supporters is the mistake here. The Second Amendment is not about machismo. Besides, MMA is about building its brand and making corporate profits–this isn’t “Fight Club”–so what did you expect? They want to go mainstream, and mainstream is controlled by liberal media and their advertisers.

    1. There’s no mistake there. The people I’ve trained with are ALL firearms owners. Most fans are too. MMA isn’t a ‘brand’. The UFC is. And no one said the 2nd was about “machismo”. Fight Club? What kind of pithy, passive-aggressive angle are you trying to work here?
      The UFC IS mainstream. Times have changed. I see UFC and TAPOUT clothing on scores of people whenever I go to a mall. I see UFC merchandise for sale at Dick’s and Sears. What level of ‘Mainstream’ are you holding out for? The level where smarmy unitarians start watching the bouts? It’s not that kind of sport. Not even close. That’s why the clumsy, attempted, appeasement of our pinchy-faced, enlightened hoplophobes makes so little sense. They will never be won over. They will never hunt, never own a firearm, never enjoy a fight, and never respect strength or skill. They are on the other side of the socio-mental divide, and the UFC and Fox needs to forget about them. Their mewling chorus of well-practiced offended whining will not be damped by shunning the shooting and hunting industry.

      1. There’s nothing wrong with MMA or the brand called UFC. My point was that the 2A has nothing to do with MMA or hunting, that’s all. Nothing passive-aggressive here, just blunt opinion, with which you are welcome to disagree. The UFC is just showing you that it is about entertainment, and entertainment seeks to maximize audiences and pull in the maximum amount of $$$$; all that leads to marketing compromises that should not surprise people who uphold certain principles.

        1. I understood you the first time. And I say again; There’s no untapped market of sniveling hand-wringers who will START watching UFC events when the scary gun-related adverts end. That mal-formed idea is flawed on the very face of it. The type of violence-shy, spine-free twits who would be bothered by an ad for hunting ammunition will never watch a fight.

  4. I agree 100% George and the UFC has seen the last of my money unless they stand up and push back. Once we vote with our feet, they’ll notice.

    You know, the Marines have been a major advertiser and have even hosted several fights, especially those with Iraq war veteran Marine Capt. Brian Stann. Will they have to put away those nasty, scary guns and knives before they can advertise and sponsor again?

  5. I never liked the UFC participants much. I knew a few and they are anti weapon across the board because “it doesn’t comport with the warrior ethos.”

    To which I respond that if your warrior ethos doesn’t include weapons, you are not long for this world when the chips are down and will be among the first to be swept away.

    I’d rather watch Top Shot.

    1. That’s 180 degrees opposite from what I’ve experienced. The only heated argument about weapons I heard was 40 vs 45.

    2. Same here Raub. The ones I know and have met in training etc. are all into firearms. I was at a Blauer SPEAR training recently and there were military, LE and a ton of MMA there and the MMA guys were all about our gear we brought, guns included. Most MMA guys are blue collar down to earth and pro-gun not ivory tower, anti-gun elitists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>